Page 06

Post your comments and notes on the Summit Draft right here.
Posts: 384
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 7:34 pm
Full Name: John Leeke
Location: Portland
Organization: Historic HomeWorks
Permissions: Yes
Location: Portland, Maine

Page 06

Postby johnleeke » August 2nd, 2011, 5:49 pm

Click "Post Reply" to enter your notes.

Posts: 8
Joined: May 30th, 2011, 4:14 pm

Re: Page 06

Postby Patrick » August 11th, 2011, 2:35 pm

can we measure infiltration rates of the disposable window "competitor"

The standard we are trying to achieve should be attainable, testing at PMSS aiming too high?

Standards should include model prescriptive specifications for specific treatments - specific energy performance for different treatments. Then maybe these would be used by architects for commercial or institutional building projects if done to the satisfaction of the architectural community with regard to concerns of liability warranty

Patrick Roach
Posts: 12
Joined: August 3rd, 2011, 10:26 am
Full Name: Patrick M. Roach AIA
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Organization: Quinn Evans
Permissions: Yes

Re: Page 06

Postby Patrick Roach » August 16th, 2011, 11:51 am

I agree with Patrick's post above regarding performance/prescriptive standards.

I think more testing will be necessary to determine if the performance demonstrated by the Pine Mountain tests is greater than can be expected overall.

@How to Use the Standards:

Architects/Engineers/Specifiers require a performance and technical standard, using both performance (i.e., windows shall not permit water infiltration) and prescriptive (i.e., maximum play in double-hung sash shall be 1/8 inch per jamb).

As was discussed in detail at the Summit, Homeowners would really benefit from an accessible and brief documents which "gives them the cold hard facts" about window restoration. First-cost, life-cycle cost, and comparative energy performance would be very helpful to a homeowner who has to make a decision whether to restore or replace their windows. I believe that this will have to be a separate document, because the overall manual will not be as accessible to them (either in terms of content or in terms of cost or availability - or all of these reasons). Likewise, craftspersons and design professionals really need a document with more in-depth information - I don't believe there is a one size fits all solution.

Posts: 16
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 12:57 pm
Full Name: Joy Sears
Location: Salem, OR
Organization: OR SHPO
Permissions: Yes

Re: Page 06

Postby barnlover » August 23rd, 2011, 11:58 pm

We need real specs put together that do more then reference Preservation Brief 9.

Direct building owners to help build maintenance of their buildings instead of just letting them go.

Preservation commissions can use this to market themselves in a good light. My city planner is desperately awaiting the Standards because I can't download my knowledge of windows to her and she is much too busy to get much training time from me.

Home owners can us this to know what to do even if they don't want to the work themselves.

Return to “Summit Draft Comments”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest